[Rdr. Seraphim]

I can't help but bring up the amp, preamp, DAC thingy again here. We choose to single out cables, but based on the type of logic being used here, amps, preamps, DAC don't make a difference either. So, where do we draw the line? Do we choose one thing over another because of profit? Then we really need to be looking at all facets of the audio chain, not just cables. Mark Levinson, Halcro, Lamm, et al all sound the same.
 
By the same logic, amplifier manufacturers exist to turn a dollar. Tests do show differences in cables. Some tests just don't reveal audible differences. It has been shown that amps don't reveal audible differences either.  
 
Quote:

Heidigger, are you saying that because quantum mechanics aren't fully understood that some fly-by-night company working out of a garage can violate known physics?

Not likely.

The cable manufacturers exist to turn a dollar. Not one tests their cables because that isn't possible. If it is possible, please reference the test results.

Otherwise, you're just handing cash over to someone who has no idea what they're doing.

 

[macbob713]

I started a life long love affair with high quality back in in 1973 when I purchased my first real stereo system. Stacked Large Advent Speakers, a mid-priced Kenwood Stereo Receiver and a Dual 1229Q turntable with a Shure V-15 cartridge. Wow. Wonderful sound. I wired it with stock cables and 16 gauge lamp wire. It sounded marvelous. Over the years I gravitated to ever higher levels of quality, from upgraded electronics, [peaked with Krell Integrated amp], B&W 802 speakers, cables,   and a highend tube hybrid cd player from Carver. Despite having spent thousands and thousands of dollars on speakers, interconnects and electronics of all sorts, over the long run nothing really kept me happy for more than a year or so. Upon reflecting on all this and having significantly downsized everything as I have gotten older and moved from a large house to a 3 bedroom apt, I have come to a few conclusions.
 
1.  A heck of a lot of  what passes for audio wisdom is really self delusion and snake oil, perpetuated by  high dollar advertising and people who buy into the spin and endless speculation, most of which is either wishful thinking or outright BS.
 
2. Since I have downsized my living space, I decided to forgo a highend audio system and build a moderatly priced headphone setup.
My research for a high quality pair of phones led me to Head-FI. After alot of reading on many websites, I purchased the AKG 702 and used it in the beginning with my headphone out jack on my Sony ES reciever. It sounded great, but after many, many hours on Head-Fi, I decided to take the plunge into a headphone amp to maximize my enjoyment of the 702.Sure enough that worked, and my phones really opened up. 
Many months of reading led me to begin to question what I already knew and loved, and in Dec 2010 I sprung for the HD800. Wow. A significant improvement in sound quality. Then more reading convinced me to upgrade my headphone amp, which I did, to the Burson HA-160. Great piece. Even was an upgrade in performance for my 702's. More bass, better mids. 
Then I kept reading the pros and cons of the new AKG Q701. Most posters on this site dismissed them as a hype job and a repaint for fresh sales. Well I have been listening to the Q 701 for several days now, and guess what, they clearly sound better than the 702 and actually rival my HD800. Are they better?  Not quite, but for significantly less money, anyone could have 95% of the sound quality of the HD800 for 1/3 the price. 
So you might wonder where I'm going with all this, and it boils down to this. Many people praise and/or damn equipment they have never heard and make declarations on how great or how bad things may or may not be, without any real knowledge of the product. 
Others make bogus claims for wire upgrades and every other kind of so-called upgrade or modification, some of which are quite bizarre. I read a series of articles dating back to the early 70's by one of the first audio critics and actual audio engineer, Julian Hirsch. He published tons of articles over the years for Stereo Review, and was always quite skeptical of fantastical audio claims. He published many controversial articles in  which he denounced the mysterys of cables, electronics etc. Anyone with an open mind and willing to challenge their own media induced assumptions should look him up on line. There is a ton of info on him.
In closing, I don't want anyone to think that I have been immune to the hype and BS. Just read the above and it's clear I have chased dozens of pipe dreams and spent alot of money over many years chasing shadows and illusions, all fired my advertising and self-delusion. Some were really great and others were just hyped by schills for the industry paid to praise everything good advertising dollars could pay for.
For those willing to consider my point of view, [and I'm sure I'll be roundly attacked], I would offer the following advice. Disregard the posts here that are just speculation, pro and con, and seek the comments of those who actually own and have lived with the equipment you are considering. Second, we all have sound preferences that vary from each other, so if you are tempted to buy or reject a product, based on reviews on this site, I suggest you click on the poster's name and check out their actual inventory of phones,etc. There you can see their sound preferences and better judge for yourself if the poster is biased to a certain type of sound signature, and in fact we all are. Third, does the poster even own the device in question, or are they just commenting on their pre-concieved opinions and prejudices. 
So like all things in life, take everything with a grain of salt. Try to hear what you are thinking about buying,  if you can, and try to avoid hype and snake oil. And always remember what W. C. Fields said, "There's an ass for every seat".

 

[upstateguy]

 
Quote:

I can't help but bring up the amp, preamp, DAC thingy again here. We choose to single out cables, but based on the type of logic being used here, amps, preamps, DAC don't make a difference either. So, where do we draw the line? Do we choose one thing over another because of profit? Then we really need to be looking at all facets of the audio chain, not just cables. Mark Levinson, Halcro, Lamm, et al all sound the same.
 
By the same logic, amplifier manufacturers exist to turn a dollar. Tests do show differences in cables. Some tests just don't reveal audible differences. It has been shown that amps don't reveal audible differences either.  
 

Brings to mind the Stereophile tests where the $12K Futterman monoblocks and the $200 Pioneer were indistinguishable.
 

 
But amps, preamps and DACs are relatively complicated devices.  In comparison, a piece of wire is a fairly simple thing.
 
USG

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Stacked Large Advent Speakers,

Hey, nice post and a lot of truth in it. 
I had stacked Advents too. 

   Ran them at first from an Advent 300 receiver and then used the Advent 300 as a pre amp w/ a 100W per ch Hitachi amp.
 
Never could decide whether I liked them better stacked or in the 4 corners of my room.
 
USG

 

[Shike]

Quote:

I can't help but bring up the amp, preamp, DAC thingy again here. We choose to single out cables, but based on the type of logic being used here, amps, preamps, DAC don't make a difference either. So, where do we draw the line? Do we choose one thing over another because of profit? Then we really need to be looking at all facets of the audio chain, not just cables. Mark Levinson, Halcro, Lamm, et al all sound the same.
 
By the same logic, amplifier manufacturers exist to turn a dollar. Tests do show differences in cables. Some tests just don't reveal audible differences. It has been shown that amps don't reveal audible differences either.

Greetings,
 
High level skeptic here.  I do draw the lines on a lot of the items you describe.  I sold my Carry Audio Xciter and went down to a DAC Magic because:
 
1)  It performed measurably in line with some of the best out there.
2)  I got it for $350 new shipped to my door from an authorized dealer.
3)  Feature set. 
4)  Piece of mind.
 
I probably could have downgraded further, but number four made it worth it.  In terms of amps I don't believe in spending obscene amounts.  My X-Head I got for $125 measures in line with a lot of headphone amps here, there's no reason for me to go out of my way improving upon something that's already done right.  Same with my Niles amp that I bought used for $250 or so.  Technically it's just a 12 channel 25W gainclone, but for my small room it provides more than enough power before clipping (even including phase angle of my speakers) and nothing is deficient enough to claim it would sound inferior in any way shape or form to an amp costing more.

 

[JerryLove]

Quote:

I can't help but bring up the amp, preamp, DAC thingy again here. We choose to single out cables, but based on the type of logic being used here, amps, preamps, DAC don't make a difference either. So, where do we draw the line? Do we choose one thing over another because of profit? Then we really need to be looking at all facets of the audio chain, not just cables. Mark Levinson, Halcro, Lamm, et al all sound the same.
 
By the same logic, amplifier manufacturers exist to turn a dollar. Tests do show differences in cables. Some tests just don't reveal audible differences. It has been shown that amps don't reveal audible differences either. 

 
Amps can sound different... though when operating something they are sufficient to properly drive, well made amps don't. Don't take my word for it, here's an Engineer from McIntosh labs (http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#goodamplifiers)
 
Pre-amps are low-powered amps with switches; so the above applies. Of course, few pre-amps are merely pre-amps. They are also EQs (obviously change sound), DACs (see below) and any number of other functions.
 
I've heard DACs with problems... generally the older integrated PC hardware. Like amps, they can make a difference but (in my experience) generally don't. Unlike amps or wires, the measurements are not as simple because the job is not as simple. While I remain skeptical that there's improvement, I cannot from my knowledge call it impossible.
 
Where are the lines? By far the major contributors to the sound you hear (barring some problem like trying to drive B&W 800's off an AVR's amp) are the source recording, the speakers, and the room (or the headphones)... well, those and your brain.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

 
Quote:

.....


3.  And what are my claims? A) My Cardas headphone cable sounds different than the stock cable. It does. Anybody who has actually heard it can tell you that, no matter what any measurements say. If your measurements say there is no difference in how they sound, then your measurements are wrong and you better figure out where you went wrong. B) That my new amp sounds different than my old amp, which again it does. C) Gain settings change the way the amp sounds, which they do. All my statements are correct. If your measurements contradict them, then your measurements are wrong. You're obviously forgetting to take something into account. Otherwise, the measurements would account for the real difference in sound. But of course as far as I know nobody here has actually measured the Cardas vis a vis the stock Sennheiser cable, so, without any measurements at all, you're up a tree. What are you basing your statements on?
 
......

Or the measurements are correct and there is another reason as to why you hear a difference.
 
With regards to Cardas and stock Sennheiser cables what I am basing my opinion on is; the constantly failed blind tests and that there is no audibly measurable difference between cables, no matter what they are made out of and how they are made.
 
Then differences appear when people can see as well as hear different cables. Then there are other reasons why cables can sound different and those reasons are in the head, placebo, buyer justification, psycoacoustics.
 
So, extrapolating from existing knowledge I would say that the only reason why you can tell the difference between the Cardas and the Senn cable is because you can see which one is which and the only reason why you hear a difference is down to pyscoacoustic reasons.
 
Measurements that show Cardas and stock Senn cables have a measureable difference that is in the audible range and a series of blind tests that find that difference can be reliably picked out, will then change my mind on the matter.

 

[EthanWiner]

Quote:

this would be trivial for Heidegger to test, just use a dmm to make sure the output levels are about the same and record samples, perhaps using white noise using the different gain settings adjusted to the same overall level, if such a loudness effect is there and it is not documented in the owners manual and personally I would call that a dubious design practice, but no matter,  then it would show up easily in a FR analysis using Audacity or similar.

 
Yes, it would be easy enough to test. I wonder if he'll do that. As I said, it seems everyone should be interested in understanding why things sound the way they do.
 
--Ethan

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

Quote:

I'm not dismissing science. I'm saying its not infallible. I also didn't claim that everything would be overturned, only that certain totally objective statements made in the past would have been proved wrong in light of quantum mechanics. Nothing can travel faster than light -- until of course something that travels faster than light is discovered.

 
Whoa, didn't you read what I wrote? Newton's not wrong. Furthermore, he was concerned with celestial mechanics which only has the word mechanics in common with quantum mechanics.
 
I love science fiction as much as though next person, but there are real reasons why light speed is an upper limit,
 

 


Quote:

Quote:

1. They believed the Newtonian laws governed more than the latter can be applied to.
 
2. Of course I don't believe that science claims 100% certainty. My problem is only with people who act as if it does and completely dismiss the experience of others when it does not seem to conform to what they believe is or isn't possible.
 
3.  And what are my claims? A) My Cardas headphone cable sounds different than the stock cable. It does. Anybody who has actually heard it can tell you that, no matter what any measurements say. If your measurements say there is no difference in how they sound, then your measurements are wrong and you better figure out where you went wrong. B) That my new amp sounds different than my old amp, which again it does. C) Gain settings change the way the amp sounds, which they do. All my statements are correct. If your measurements contradict them, then your measurements are wrong. You're obviously forgetting to take something into account. Otherwise, the measurements would account for the real difference in sound. But of course as far as I know nobody here has actually measured the Cardas vis a vis the stock Sennheiser cable, so, without any measurements at all, you're up a tree. What are you basing your statements on?
 
4. Sorry, not everything can be measured. The study of what cannot be measured is called phenomenology. For instance, suppose I am wearing contact lenses and go to a museum to look at one of my favorite paintings. While I am studying the painting it is closer to me than the contact lenses which I forgot I was even wearing. When I have a conversation with you, you are closer to me than the contact lenses. But to somebody who has objectified everything and comes limping along with his/her tape measure, the kind of closeness I am talking about makes no sense. S/he will always tell me that the contact lenses are closer to me than the painting or than the person I am intimately talking to. Of course, to the person with the tape measure perpetually lodged in their heads, "me" equals "body." They have no conception of how something farther away from my body can still be closer to me. When I say that the painting is closer to me, I'm not talking about my body at all. The kind of distance and closeness I'm talking about can't be measured. Another example: suppose you are walking down the street and spot a friend of yours who is a few yards away. That friend is closer to you than the stranger walking right behind you who you never noticed was ever there. Another thing that can't be measured is context. Things aren't just bare objects but exist in a context. Like signs, things perpetually point to and indicate each other. The presence of shoes indicates the existence of a shoemaker and of the animal who provided the leather for the shoe, and so forth. This is called the referential contex, which cannot be measured with any equipment.
 

1. No, it was know to be imperfect form the start.
 
2. You are the only one claiming that anyone actually does claim "science" is infallible.
 
3. Who said the measurement has to be taken by a machine?  If your magic cable de jour really does sound different then you should be able to identify it in a blind test.
 
4. Stop glorying in your equivocation and make an actual point.
 
Let me try and make this a little clearer.  In order to know that something exists you have to be able to measure it in some fashion.  You can measure it with a machine or with your own senses after suitable blinding and replication.  Perfect accuracy or precision is not necessary, but the phenomena must manifest in some way.  Things that do not manifest are not measurable and even though such things may exist we cannot know anything about them because we cannot interact with them in any way and they can have no effect on our reality.  If there is no manifestation to measure then you can have no actual information about the phenomena and are essentially making stuff up.

 
1. You're obviously not listening to what I'm saying. The fact that there was a phenomenon that did not quite conform to Newton's Laws of Motion can't be compared to a context in which Newton's Laws break down and can't even be applied, as is the case with subatomic phenomena.
 
2. I'm claiming no such thing. I am claiming that there are some presumptuous people who, using science as their excuse, are erroneously trying to tell me that the clear and obvious difference between my Cardas and stock cables is a figment of my imagination. It obviously isn't.
 
3. I can easily tell them apart.
 
4. According to you love doesn't exist because it can't be meaured.

 

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

 
Quote:

Quote:

 

1. It's news to you that amps may have gain settings and/or that they may be adjusted by the user? You didn't consider it even as a remote possibility?
 
I do know about gain switches, my M^3 has one. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, i.e trusting that you had not allowed a confounding variable to enter the equation, you were as I recall the one who suggested not questioning absolutely everything ?

I said just the opposite: that you should have questioned not only the possibility that I was hearing a real difference but also the possibility that I wasn't hearing a real difference. Obviously, I'm being unfair to you because I'm presupposing that you gave my problem more thought than you would give something that a stranger brings up in a forum. My point is that you should not always assume that you have all the relevant data, and that you should at least leave the possibility open that what somebody is saying might be true even if, at first blush, it doesn't seem to conform to what is possible. 

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

Heidigger, are you saying that because quantum mechanics aren't fully understood that some fly-by-night company working out of a garage can violate known physics?

Not likely.

The cable manufacturers exist to turn a dollar. Not one tests their cables because that isn't possible. If it is possible, please reference the test results.

Otherwise, you're just handing cash over to someone who has no idea what they're doing.

Hear you, Uncle Erik -- yet what can I say? Once having tried the Cardas there is no going back to the stock cable for me.

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

Clearly you didn't bother to read the article. Ok, I'm done.

I didn't have time, but that doesn't mean I won't get to it. In any case, I already know there are extremely good reasons why nothing can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum.

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

 
Quote:

.....


3.  And what are my claims? A) My Cardas headphone cable sounds different than the stock cable. It does. Anybody who has actually heard it can tell you that, no matter what any measurements say. If your measurements say there is no difference in how they sound, then your measurements are wrong and you better figure out where you went wrong. B) That my new amp sounds different than my old amp, which again it does. C) Gain settings change the way the amp sounds, which they do. All my statements are correct. If your measurements contradict them, then your measurements are wrong. You're obviously forgetting to take something into account. Otherwise, the measurements would account for the real difference in sound. But of course as far as I know nobody here has actually measured the Cardas vis a vis the stock Sennheiser cable, so, without any measurements at all, you're up a tree. What are you basing your statements on?
 
......

With regards to Cardas and stock Sennheiser cables what I am basing my opinion on is; the constantly failed blind tests and that there is no audibly measurable difference between cables, no matter what they are made out of and how they are made.
 
 

Were any of these blind tests performed specifically with the Cardas and the stock Sennheiser cable?

 

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

Quote:

this would be trivial for Heidegger to test, just use a dmm to make sure the output levels are about the same and record samples, perhaps using white noise using the different gain settings adjusted to the same overall level, if such a loudness effect is there and it is not documented in the owners manual and personally I would call that a dubious design practice, but no matter,  then it would show up easily in a FR analysis using Audacity or similar.

 
Yes, it would be easy enough to test. I wonder if he'll do that. As I said, it seems everyone should be interested in understanding why things sound the way they do.
 
--Ethan

The difference in sound between the Cardas and stock cables is such that if I performed the test and it told me there was no audible difference then I would assume there was something wrong with the test. If it told me that there is an audible difference, then it would simply be confirming what I already know.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

No and you are the person to do that for this thread. That will show whether Cardas and Sennheiser have the properties that you claim, an audible difference based on hearing ability alone or whether I am right to take existing evidence about cables and apply it to Cardas and Sennheiser cables.